How Evolution Flunked the Science Test

Introduction

Recently I talked to a man with a fantastic amount of faith. Not one shade of doubt crept into his animated description of man's origin and destiny. He was an evolutionist I met on an airplane. With incredible confidence he bridged the eons of prehistoric time to explain the existence of modern plant and animal life. His detailed description of human ascent from a tiny, one-celled monad was so vivid and convincing that one could almost believe he had seen the microscopic amoeba turn into a man.

What is this evolution doctrine that inspires so much faith in its disciples? How has it turned great scientists into dogmatic opponents of any other viewpoint? Many evolutionary scientists have united their professional influence to forbid any classroom instruction contrary to their own views. Does the theory of evolution merit this kind of fanatical support, which would silence all opposing ideas? When religious people take such a position, they are called bigots, but scientists seem to escape that charge. In February of 1977, nearly 200 members of the nation's academic community sent letters to school boards across the United States, urging that no alternate ideas on origins be permitted in classrooms.

This indicates that the evolutionists are feeling the threat of a rising revolt against the stereotyped, contradictory versions of their theory. Many students are looking for honest answers to their questions about the origin and purpose of life. For the first time, the stale traditions of evolution have to go on the defensive. But let's take a look at what they have to defend. Then you will understand why these evolutionary scientists are people of such extraordinary faith, and why they are so fearful of facing competition at the school level.

1. Spontaneous Generation

How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."

Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.

Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontane¬ous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work—in other words, God. How do they get around this dilemma?

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
—Scientific American, August 1954.


That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he believes it did happen. What can we say to that kind of faith? At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be impossible.

So here we are, face to face with the first contradiction of evolution with a basic law of science. In order to sustain his humanistic explanation of the origin of life, he must accept the exploded, unscientific theory of spontaneous generation. And the big question is this: Why is he so violently opposed to the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible? A miracle of creation is required in either case. Either God did it by divine fiat, or blind, unintelligent nature produced Wald's impossible act. Let any reasonable mind contemplate the alternatives for a moment. Doesn't it take more faith to believe that chance could produce life than it does to believe infinite intelligence could produce it?

Why did Dr. Wald say that it was impossible for life to result from spontaneous generation? That was not an easy concession for a confirmed evolutionist to make. His exhaustive search for a scientific explanation ended in failure, as it has for all other evolutionary scientists, and he had the courage to admit it. But he also had an incredible faith to believe in it even though it was a scientific impossibility. A Christian who confessed to such a faith would be labeled as naive and gullible. What a difference the cloak of higher education makes upon our easily impressed minds! How much simpler and sweeter the faith that accepts the inspired account: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

2. Chance Life—A Ridiculous Improbability

What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man-made thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955:

"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."

A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way:

"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years"
—(The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23).

How can we explain the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background? And how can we harmonize the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated, with the narrow bigotry exhibited by many evolutionary scientists in trying to suppress opposing points of view? The obvious explanation would seem to be rooted in the desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the sole dispensers of dogmatic truth. To acknowledge a superior wisdom has been too long cultivated by the evolutionist community. They have repeated their assumptions for so long in support of their theories that they have started accepting them as facts. No one objects to their assuming whatever they want to assume, but to assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific evidence and still call it science is being dishonest.

3. Mutations—How Big the Changes?

Now let's look at a second basic evolutionary teaching which is contrary to scientific law. One of the most necessary parts of evolution, which is supposed to provide the power for changing the amoeba into a man, is mutation. This refers to abnormal changes in the organism that are assumed to be caused by chemical changes in the genes themselves. The genes are the hereditary factors within the chromosomes of each species. Every species has its own particular number of chromosomes that contain the genes. Within every human being are 46 chromosomes containing an estimated 100,000 genes, each one of which is able to affect in some way the size, color, texture, or quality of the individual. The assumption is that these genes, which provide the inherited characteristics we get from our ancestors, occasionally become affected by unusual pairing, chemical damage, or other influences, causing them to produce an unusual change in one of the offspring. This is referred to as a mutation. Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned into an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists. Families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses. This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else—with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.

Now everybody knows that instead of finding those billions of confused family fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite. Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied. Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists. Most people would give up and change their theory when faced with such a crushing, deflating blow, but not the evolutionist! He still searches for that illusive missing link which could at least prove that he hasn't been 100 percent wrong.

But let's look at the vehicle that the evolutionists have depended upon to provide the possibility of the drastic changes required by their theory. Sir Julian Huxley, a principal spokesman for evolution, said this:

"Mutation provides the raw material of evolution." Again he said, "Mutation is the ultimate sources of all … heritable variation"
—(Evolution in Action, p. 38).

Professor Ernst Mayr, another leader of the evolutionists, made this statement:

"Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on"
—(Animal Species and Evolution, p. 170).

Please keep this clearly in mind: Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species that changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT—the scientific fact is that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it, for several reasons. As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such mutations lead toward extinction instead of evolution; they make the organism worse instead of better. Huxley admits: "The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism" (Ibid. p. 39).

Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation every day! He concludes by saying:

"Obviously … such a process has played no part whatever in evolution"
—(The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96).

Does this sound sort of confusing to you? They say mutation is necessary to make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to confess that it is scientifically impossible for multiple mutations to make the changes. This is too typical of the puzzling twists and turns made by our evolutionist friends in their efforts to uphold an exploded theory. So the second point of contradiction with true science has been established.

Mutations, of course, do effect minor changes within the basic kinds, but those changes are limited, never producing a new family. They can explain many of the varieties of both plant and animals but can never explain the creation of basic kinds as required by evolution.

4. Fossils Support Creationism

Since we have discovered that the fossil record gives no support to the idea of species gradually changing into other species, let us see if fossil evidence is in harmony with the Bible. Ten times in the book of Genesis we read God's decree concerning the reproduction of His creatures—"after its kind." The word "kind" refers to species, or families. Each created family was to produce only its own kind. This forever precludes the drifting, changing process required by organic evolution where one species turns into another.

Take note that God did not say there could be no changes within the family. He did not create all the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, etc., in the very beginning. There was only a male and female of each species, and many changes have since occurred to produce a wide assortment of varieties within the family. But please keep it straight in your mind that cats have always remained cats, dogs are still dogs, and men are still men. Mutation has only been responsible for producing a new variety of the same species, but never originating another new kind. Selective breeding has also brought tremendous improvements such as hornless cattle, white turkeys, and seedless oranges, but all the organisms continue to reproduce exactly as God decreed at Creation—after its kind.

The "common ancestor" that evolution demands has never existed. There is not a "missing link." Man and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same animal ancestry! Even chimpanzees and many monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are smart, others dumb. Some have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at all. Their teeth vary in number. A few have thumbs and others do not. Their genes are different. Their blood is different. Their chromosomes don't jibe. Interestingly enough, apes only breed with apes, chimpanzees with chimpanzees, and monkeys with monkeys.

But when we start comparing humans with monkeys, we get even more impossible differences than those among the simian types. In fact, these differences constitute another unanswerable support for the Bible rule of "after its kind." The fact that some monkeys can be trained to smoke a pipe, ride a scooter, or even hoist a test tube in a laboratory does not prove that scientists are evolved animals, or that monkeys are retarded, developing humans.

It has already been stated that evolutionists expected the fossil record to support their theory of species changes. Their doctrine demanded vast numbers of scaly reptiles transforming their scales into feathers and their front feet into wings. Other reptiles supposedly should be changing into fur-bearing quadrupeds. Did they find those thousands of multi-changing creatures? Not one! No matter what particular strata they sifted through, all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within their own families, just as God decreed. If the evolutionary doctrine were true, the strata would be teeming with hundreds of millions of transition forms with combination features of two or more species. Not only so, but there would have to be millions upon millions of observable living links right now in the process of turning into a higher form. Darwin confessed:

"There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record"
—(Life and Letters, vol. 3, p. 25).

How interesting! Then why insist that it had to be that way? This is one of the marvels of those who cling to a traditional theory. Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have stubbornly retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is amusing to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists. The creationist is not surprised at all. His Bible told him it would be that way, and he hasn't been forced to puzzle over contradictory evidence.

5. The Mystery of the Empty Strata

Another frustration for the poor evolutionist is the strange case of the empty strata. As one digs deep into the earth, one layer or stratum after another is revealed. Often we can see these layers clearly exposed in the side of a mountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have given names to the succession of strata that pile one on top of another. Descending into Grand Canyon for example, one moves downward past the Mississippi, Devonian, Cambrian, etc., as the scientists have tagged them.

Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.

Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species:

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer … the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained"
—(p. 309).

How amazing! Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it.

Many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and frustration. Dr. Daniel Axeliod of the University of California calls it:

"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution"
—(Science, July 4, 1958).

Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian fossils:

"Strange as it may seem … mollusks were mollusks just as unmistakably as they are now"
—(The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 101).

Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University marveled over the problem in these words:

"Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? … If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling"
—(Stratigraphy and Life History, p. 102).

George Gaylord Simpson, the "Crown Prince of Evolution", summarized it:

"The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record but also its greatest apparent inadequacy"
—(The Evolution of Life, p.144).

In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble under the impartial investigation of honest research.

The absence of Precambrian fossils points to one great fact, unacceptable to the evolutionists—a sudden creative act of God that brought all the major creatures into existence at the same time. Their claims that creationism is unscientific are made only to camouflage their own lack of true evidence. The preponderance of physical scientific data is on the side of creation, not evolution.

6. Uniformity or the Flood?

The subject of strata beds leads into the interesting question of how these layers were formed, and why the evolutionists have guesstimated their age in the billions of years. The dating of those layers has been done on the basis of the theory of uniformity. This theory assumes that all the natural processes at work in the past have operated exactly as they do today. In other words, the creation of those strata can only be explained on the basis of what we see happening in the world now. Scientists must calculate how long it takes for sedimentation to build a foot-deep stratum. Then that age is assigned to any 12-inch layer, no matter how deeply located within the earth.

Is that a valid assumption to make? Have all the natural forces of the past been just what we can demonstrate and understand today? How naive and conceited to compel ages past to conform to our limited observation and experience! We can assume what we please, but it proves absolutely nothing except our own gullibility. The Bible explains very graphically about a Flood that ravaged the face of this earth, covering the highest mountains and completely destroying all plant and animal life outside the ark. The destructive action of the Deluge is expressed by these words in the Bible:

"The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights"
—(Genesis 7:11, 12).

The existence of those strata can be scientifically accounted for in perfect harmony with the Bible record. The universal Flood of Genesis provides a much more reasonable explanation of the strata than evolution's speculations. As the waters receded from the earth, powerful tides and currents carved out the great canyons in a short time. Layers of debris, according to the specific weight, were laid down, compressing plant and animal life into a compact seam or stratum. Only thus can we explain the vast oil reserves and coal beds around the world. These are the result of vegetation and animal bodies being buried under extreme heat and pressure. No such process of fossilization is taking place today. No oil or coal is forming by present natural forces at work. Uniformity fails here.

The fact is, there had to be a gigantic cataclysmic overturn of nature, killing and burying millions of tons of plant and animal life. The position of some fossils standing upright through one or more strata indicates that the process was not slow or age long. The material had to be deposited quickly around the body of the animal, or it could not have remained in its erect position. The flood buried millions of fish, many of them contorted as though suddenly overtaken by a phenomenal force. Marine fossils have been recovered from the highest mountain ranges, and a checklist on other scientific evidences points to a universal deluge over the entire planet.

7. Survival of the Fittest

"Natural selection" is a coined phrase of the evolutionist to describe the survival of the fittest. Simply stated, it is the natural process that enables the strongest of each generation to survive and the weaker, more poorly adjusted ones to die out. The assumption of evolution is that since only the strongest survive to father the next generation, the species will gradually improve, even advancing into other more highly developed states on the evolutionary scale.

Darwin believed that natural selection was the most important factor in the development of his theory. Many of the top teachers of evolution today are hopelessly at odds on the question of how vital it is. Sir Julian Huxley believes in it, as this statement indicates:

"So far as we know … natural selection … is the only effective agency of evolution"
—(Evolution in Action, p. 36).

He is disputed on this by another one of the heavyweights in the field, Dr. Ernst Mayr:

"Natural selection is no longer regarded as an all-or-none process but rather as a purely statistical concept"
—(Animal Species, p. 7).

G. G. Simpson, who is regarded as the leading interpreter of the theory today, rejects these opposite views. He said,

"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause"
—(The Geography of Evolution, p. 17).

By the way, when you read about the great unity and agreement that exists among the scientists regarding evolution, don't believe a word of it. Each one is busily experimenting with new speculative possibilities as to how the changes took place and then abandoning them as they appear more and more ridiculous. The one basic tenet they do agree on is that there was no divine fiat creation as described in the Bible.

But come back a moment to the matter of natural selection. What is the evidence that it can actually reproduce all the changes involved in the transition from amoeba to man? Is there scientific proof that it can even make one small change? When it comes right down to answering those questions, the spokesmen for evolution do some of the fanciest footwork in semantics you ever saw and make some of the most amazing admissions. Even though Simpson supports natural selection as a factor, he recognizes the scarcity of evidence in these words:

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation"
—(Major Features, pp. 118, 119).

But listen to Huxley's circular reasoning on it. He says:

"On the basis of our present knowledge natural selection is bound to produce genetic adaptations: and genetic adaptations are thus presumptive evidence for the efficiency of natural selection"
—(Evolution in Action, p. 48).

Did you follow that gem of logic? His proof for natural selection is adaptation or change in the organism, but the change is produced by natural selection! In other words: A=B; therefore B=A. His “proof” proves nothing. Were the changes produced by natural selection, or did he invent natural selection to explain the changes? It is just as likely that the changes produced the natural selection theory. The ludicrous thing is that even the changes from species to species have never been verified. As we have shown already, there is not one shred of fossil evidence or living evidence that any species has changed into another. So Huxley's proof for natural selection are changes which never happened, and the changes which never happened are offered as proof for natural selection. Surely this is the most vacuous logic to be found in a science textbook.

But let us continue with Sir Julian's explanation about the reliability of this natural selection process:

"To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way"
—(Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55).

Don't miss the force of that last sentence. The evolutionary changes wrought by natural selection are "astronomically improbable," but because our friend Huxley sees no other way for it to be done, he believes in the astronomically improbable. Poor man! He is wrong when he said the complex order of life today could have been achieved in no other way. God created the wonders of cell and gene and all the millions of processes that leave the Nobel Prize winners baffled.

But since Sir Julian doesn't believe in a divine creation, he has to invent a miracle-working process to explain the existence of these complex creatures—obviously got here somehow. To illustrate the omnipotence of his "natural selection" god, Huxley computed the odds against such a process. The computations were done on the likelihood of every favorable evolutionary factor being able to produce a horse. Now keep in mind that this is all a chance development through the operation of nature, time, mutation, and natural selection. In his book, Evolution in Action, Huxley gave the odds this way:

"The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! … No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened"
—(p.46).

We commented before about the faith of evolutionists to believe in the impossible. Since this figure of compound probability is effectively zero, how can a scientific mind, in the absence of any demonstrable evidence, be so dogmatic in defending his theory? Why did Huxley employ a mathematical formula to illustrate the impossibility of his theory working? Perhaps he used the figures to accent his personal testimony. Just as born-again Christians seek occasions to bear their personal testimony of faith in Christ, Huxley demolishes the scientific possibilities of his theory in order to magnify the personal faith aspect of his personal testimony for the god evolution.

Marshall and Sandra Hall in their book The Truth—God or Evolution? share their reaction to Huxley's absurd faith in the chance production of a horse. It will provide a fitting climax of proof that evolution indeed flunked the science test.

"And, let us remind you who find such odds ridiculous (even if you are reassured by Mr. Huxley), that this figure was calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeros would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being? And then you would have just one horse and one human being and, unless the mathematician wishes to add in the probability for the evolution of all the plants and animals that are necessary to support a horse and a man, you would have a sterile world where neither could have survived any stage of its supposed evolution! What have we now—the figure 1 followed by a thousand volumes of zeros? Then add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the earth having all the necessary properties for life built into it. And add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and the moon, and the stars. Add other thousands for the evolution of all the thoughts that man can have, all the objective and subjective reality that ebbs and flows in us like part of the pulse beat of an inscrutable cosmos!

"Add them all in and you long ago stopped talking about rational thought, much less scientific evidence. Yet, Simpson, Huxley, Dobzhansky, Mayr, and dozens of others continue to tell us that is the way it had to be! They have retreated from all the points which ever lent any semblance of credibility to the evolutionary theory. Now they busy themselves with esoteric mathematical formulations based on population genetics, random drift, isolation, and other ploys which have a probability of accounting for life on earth of minus zero! They clutter our libraries, and press on the minds of people everywhere an animated waxen image of a theory that has been dead for over a decade.

"Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science."

"It is time all this nonsense ceased. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries" (pp. 39, 40).

These examples of evolutionary folly are only the tip of an iceberg, but they reassure us that we have no cause to be embarrassed for our creationist faith. Millions of Christians have been intimidated by the high-sounding technical language of educated evolutionists, many of whom are vitriolic in their attacks on special creation. What we do need is more information on exposing the loopholes in the evolutionary theory; its base is so riddled with unscientific inconsistencies, often concealed under the gobbledygook of scientific jargon.

To follow our ancestry back through the sons of Adam, "who was the son of God," is so much more satisfying than to search through dismal swamps for bleeping monad forebears. The human race has dropped, even in our lifetime, several degrees deeper into moral perversion and violent disorder. Humanists cite our animal ancestry as an excuse for much of this bizarre behavior. Why blame people for action dictated by their bestial genes and chromosomes? This rationalization, like a temporary insanity plea, provides license for further irresponsible conduct. The true cause for evil and the true remedy for it are found only in the Word of God. Sin has defaced the image of God in man, and only a personal encounter with the perfect Saviour will bring a reversal of the problem of evil.


Source...
Amazing Facts

Thanks Russ, I just have one question:

Can you show me evidence of one population or organisms where hereditary traits don't change from generation to generation?

I've looked around and it seems to me that all the populations of organisms living in the world today show changes in hereditary traits from generation to generation. The fossil record also supports this, as there are no two identical fossils. Genetics supports this as there are no two individuals with identical DNA.

So I've made this little theory that this is an ongoing process in all life forms.

I can invalidate this little theory by demonstrating one population of organisms that does not change hereditary traits from generation to generation, where all organisms are identical, but so far I have not found one: so can you help?

Just a basic scientific approach here: observation, theory, test.

Enjoy.

Well, RAZD, it may seem incredulous to you that hereditary traits do not change from generation to generation but that's because you simply haven't done your homework© (it's not like you have a degree in RussTolution anyway). What's more, why should Russ give you the answers to these questions? He's here to offer nuggets of wisdom© to people and to serve as a mirror© to the general populace so that we can know thyselves©. He can point you in the right direction but ultimately if we want to know the truth we have to do the homework© ourselves.

I think what we both need to do, you and I, RAZD, is figure out what our homework© assignment actually is.

Warning: do not expect Russ to give you a clear and direct answer to the above query. That's what doing your homework© is all about.

Interesting responses to this long and scientifically bankrupt post from a creationist website/magazine/whatever. Time-consuming and pointless to discuss every single point of it here, but I'll pick out a couple of my favourites.



Misunderstanding of natural selection. "Strong" is an inappropritae word to use; "best adapted to the evironment" is more accurate. Are the "weakest" eliminated in every single generation? No, as had been explained in other posts here. When beneficial mutations occur, there is a tendency for those organisms' offspring to survive and reporduce more successfully in that environment, and over time that mutation will become established within the population. There's also an assumption in this quote about "improvement," which is typical of creationist posts, because they think evolution has to have the "goal" of getting from the simplest organisms to humankind. While complexity has increased in some organisms over time (not all), it's more accurate to say that . . . well, as RAZD has repeated to deaf ears, inheritable traits in a population change over time. "Improvement" is a subjective, not a scientific term.

This is a hoot:


There are just so many things wrong with this, which would be clear to anyone with a basic high school level science education. And an ability to think logically.

"Guesstimated" is yet another (yawn) stab at geologists who have studied rocks for decades, in the field and in the lab, comparing their results and information. Radiometric and cosmogenic dating methods are ignored, possibly because the author of this post wouldn't know how to refute radiometric dating and, this is just a guess, possibly has no clue what cosmogenic dating is. This is also ignoring the fact that the fossil record is sorted around the world, and index fossils such as foraminifera -- for which a complete evolutionary record exists, covering millions of years -- can help with dating (though it is obviously erroneous to state, as creationists often do, that fossils date rocks and rocks date fossils). Geologists study the deposition rates of all kinds of sediments and are aware that some processes are slow and some are rapid -- you will not find one who believes in "uniformity" in such a way that he/she denies the possibility that catastrophic events do occur. They know, for example, the difference between a landscape carved by gradual uplift and erosion, and that carved by a catastrophic flood, as was discussed in detail in the Grand Canyon thread here. They also are able to count millions of layers of varves in different areas of the world (such as the Green River formation) and can see that these layers have been deposited a fixed number of times per year, every year, without having been disturbed by a flood.

Interestingly, the above post is trying to make a case for geological processes having been different in the past. How foolish not to consider this! it says. Problem is, there is absolutely no evidence that geological processes havechanged, because we can study rocks and ice which are hundreds of thousands to billions of years old and get a lot of information from them; nor is any evidence given to attempt to validate this assertion.

Finally, this post claims that the Biblical flood killed all plant and animal life outside the ark. This can be discussed in depth in another thread, but I'm interested in the dead plants claim here. The Bible doesn't say anything about Noah turning the ark into a greenhouse as well as a zoo, nor how he would be able to grow plants from the arctic tundra and tropical rainforests in the same boat. I can see the next claim coming -- that he took seeds. (Which begs the question of how he got them -- not from the local garden centre.) Not being a botanist, I don't have any handy examples of species for which this is improbable, but the logistical problem remains of how he would then get all the necessary seeds planted in the proper environments, while also coping with dispersing the animals to their respective habitats while preventing them from attacking each other while they got off the ark. This is the tip of the iceberg as far as this particular subject is concerned.

However, I'll be content to see RAZD's definition of evolution discussed here. That's the heart of the matter.

Anybody care to deal with any of the massive issues and evidence presented in this article?

Erm . . . did you read my post above or are you deliberately ignoring it? Would you care to deal with any of the issues and evidence from me? Are you going to answer RAZD's question?

You seem to be from the same school of debate as CTD: keep making the same claims over and over, ignore it when they are refuted, then later claim that you provided irrefutable evidence somewhere if anyone cares to look.

I'll be content when the political arm of the "scientific" community stops lying about what they claim "evolution" is.

I'm beginning to think of "evolution" as on par with Scientology.

See...
Redefining Evolution

I bet I know more about L. Ron Hubbard than you do. This is a cheap shot, Russ. Will you -- can you -- actually discuss any of the points made since your opening post? Or do you intend to have a conversation with yourself here?

Hm, to add to this. You, Russ, are deciding to have the last word on threads and then locking them. You have banned at least three people in the past few days. You are ignoring the issues being discussed and your general tone is angry. You have chosen simply to repeat the mantra, "evolution is lies," and are getting angry that not everyone here is saying "OK then, you're right."

Please take a step back and think about how this looks to all the lurkers you say you want to reach. What impression do you want to give them of your own position and beliefs? I think most of us have come here and posted when we've been angry about something else in our lives, and got unusually frustrated as a result. This is not typical behaviour for you. If you want to take a break for a while, I can't see the discussions going too far on here while you are gone.

Hey, Russ.

I'll take that as a "no" - that you do not have any evidence of populations that do not change hereditary traits from generation to generation.

That's test 1 of the integrity of your definition.

Let's try the original Darwin formulation: do you know of any populations that do not show descent with modification?

Enjoy.

ps - thanks for locking the transition thread. It was getting out of hand and way off the original topic.

Again, the fundamental problem with your argument is that you have deceptively changed the fundamental premise of the evolution religion.

Evolution, as taught to millions in my generation and generations before, is not "natural selection". Evolution was taught as primordial soup to man. Anyone with a memory and some integrity knows this.

The backpedaling now in progress by the evolution fanatics is intellectually dishonest.

Redefining Evolution:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z

RAZD, if you aren't gone, what would this prove, though? I will miss you. You ticked me off royally originally, but you've grown to be one of my favorites.

I'm going to be doing my homework!!!! Take care Pwcca

Sorry Russ, but this is incorrect, as has been shown to you. RAZD posted the definition of evolution from a couple of university websites and it was as he stated, not as you have stated. If anyone ever told you that evolution is "soup to man," they were mistaken. Abiogenesis is separate from ToE. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish my repeating the "soup to man" mantra, unless you think that sheer repetition will make people believe you.

I'm glad to know this. I imagine people's viewpoints differ with their perceptions, too. Some will believe differently than others.

That's very true. But when we're talking about science, we need to be exact. The definition of a theory is not something that people perceive differently, or believe different things about. Theories have to be clearly defined so that scientists around the world can study the evidence for them and replicate experiments. Often the theories need to be altered as new evidence comes to light.

Disagreeing with what a theory states is another matter. But what you have to remember is that in the case of ToE, many scientists from many different fields have been studying it for decades, and there is a large evidential base for it. If someone claims they disagree with it, it is only logical that they will need to give some concrete reasons why. Writing "it's a lie" in big colourful letters everywhere might be emotionally satisfying but it isn't exactly going to blow science out of the water.

True. I don't honestly have a clear idea of what evolution is other than what I've learned on here (and lose it....)and what I learned in science in college (and since in tidbits at high school while subbing) years ago. I have more of a base in science than anything - use to even work in a lab for the army testing fuels, but it has been a long time and things have changed, but I never got into that aspect then anyway other than my experience with the people who were getting confused. My main issues have to do with the beginning of man and if I understand right, even for evolutionists, that is something that is open?? I agree with Russ on the primordial soup issue (not believing it) but, apparently, not all do believe that. Personally I have steered clear of areas I was interested in like becoming a nutritionist (when I was told in my first college class there was no difference between whole wheat and white....dumb and now widely known to be wrong), the social sciences because I see too much wrong with that...and did then and don't trust it (psychology - I have tried to get past some issues like being raped by trying counseling and could not even continue...), and know there is a lot of bogus garbage in the medical field. I don't trust much including the school system in some ways, but have decided my one way to, perhaps, contribute in a meaningful way is to go back to school and become a certified special ed teacher. I still have days I'm not sure - but overall....am thinking that may be my "calling." Still I will have to play by the rules and bite my tongue if there are issues I don't think are right. (Like the seemingly indiscriminate testing....maybe I ought to go into psychology - but figure I can make the most difference working directly with kids. Some days I feel too old to start, but I'm doing it already. Sorry to get OT.

Months ago I was debating this with CTD and I posted a lot of info and links. That humans and apes evolved from an apelike ancestor is not in dispute. Some interesting areas of debate are where certain species fit into the phylogenetic tree, though the differences of opinion here are not huge; and at what point hominins stopped being arboreal (living in trees). No doubt there are a lot of fascinating things left to discover, and revisions in theories to be made, but the archaeological and DNA evidence do unambiguously point to evolution of the species as it is understood today.



I agree. Are doctors scientists? My husband thinks so. I think I'd say no. We can debate that another time if I'm still here.



You'd be good at this.

I agree. Are doctors scientists? My husband thinks so. I think I'd say no. We can debate that another time if I'm still here.



You'd be good at this. [/quote]

I'd be glad to talk about Dr. issues. I suppose some are scientists. But we need more true healers and they are usually drug dispensers and not really all that good at diagnosing. I wish there were more Dr. House's out there : ) (As far as diagnostitions). I was nearly killed the year of the last election. I had appendicitis for 6 months that went misdiagnosed and even though after one hospitalization already and continuing symptoms (when I was, again, put on antibiotics with it not being looked into further), Nov. 2nd it finally burst and I had to go to the hospital by ambulance. (That was a first). Was growing 2 kinds of bacteria. Luckily the infection in my abdomen was not far spread.

Thanks for the encouragement. I've pretty much decided, but want to be absolutely sure. Will likely start the beginning of the year with school.

Yes, in fact, everyone I know has been taught that evolution is soup-to-man.

It was taught throughout my schooling, and that of everyone I know.

I have visited the Smithsonian Institution many times, and they also had display after display showing the soup-to-man theory as evolution.

All of the textbooks that I have been taught from, all of the teachers I had, all of the exhibits that I've ever seen in museums (Utah, Denver, Seattle, D.C., Florida); They all pushed the soup-to-man theory and called it evolution.

In fact, I've never heard that evolution was anything but this until relatively recently, and knowing what I do from my conspiracy research, this make perfect sense.

Based on all that I've experienced, what this guy is saying is true:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z

In having a background in conspiracy research, I also know that revisionist history is always presented this way. It's an information campaign, just like the guy in the video says. They print articles, create video programs, and simply push a new idea over and over until it's been crammed into people's heads so far that people begin to doubt their own memory of what they had been taught previously.

As for me, I clearly remember what I have seen and what I have been taught previously.

It's hard for people to accept big conspiracies because people don't understand how large systems can be controlled by small numbers of people. So, people confronted with conspiracy theory are inclined to throw information out because on its face, it seems ("feels") absurd.

The key is to persist, because when you've been indoctrinated into a belief system (religion?) all your life, and then someone finally confronts you with something that is in opposition, it is stressful, and it raises more questions then it solves.

Most people do not go very far in looking into the "raised" questions. They are lazy and just give up and default to belief "a". This is the reason why the government strives to "get them while they're young".

(This is why the government wants to eliminate home schooling, or at least control every aspect of it. California has attempted to make it illegal recently. Government private-schooling bonds/certificates seem good at first look, but in fact, they are nothing more than an attempt to control what can be taught in private schools. More on this another time.)

But, when people persist through all of the raised questions one-by-one, and they patiently search them all out, they eventually discover that their original belief system, the one they've been taught all their life, is the one that is wrong.

It's astounding to learn I realize, but through my research, and the research of a fast-growing number of others, we have learned that much of what we've been taught in school was wrong.

When you ask, "Why did they teach us that?", you eventually begin to connect the dots and understand that through careful manipulation of information, the powers-that-be can cause you to come to whatever conclusions they wish (actually, conclusions are grouped and then each group is further indoctrinated with a Smorgasborg of choices allowing them to choose whatever "reality" they want to embrace, and this social pressure of allowing people to embrace their own personal "reality"—which really is nothing more than a lie—is called "tolerance", and is very destructive and divisive among people.

Of course, a divided people is exactly what the powers-that-be want because of the divide-and-conquer doctrine. The PTB would be unable to conquer a people united, so they must cause division while attempting to look like they are attempting to unite.

So, I'm saying all this to say that the fact that an information campaign was launched on TV, printed media, and in other places that contradicts evolution as I've been taught it, does not surprise me. It's the standard MO for promoting a new "truth" to people. And considering the timing, and that my information indicates that scientists have been abandoning "evolution" like the Titanic, there has to be some kind of damage control to salvage it. So, it's obvious the method they chose to salvage evolution is really the only choice they had:

Change it into something much more acceptable.

And so they have.

Just another day in the information war.

And yet, abiogenesis is a separate theory from ToE. If you were taught that it wasn't, you were taught incorrectly. I was not taught incorrectly in my own schooling experience. And if you researched these two subjects, you would see that while there is a large evidential basis for ToE, that of abiogenesis is in its infancy, and no one has proved anything about it yet. Many scientists are looking for the origin of life in space and on other worlds.

Evolution happens no matter how life began. We don't need to know how it happened to be able to see what's been happening to life ever since.

I believe you want the two theories to be one and the same so that you can then push the idea that evolution is atheism, because then there must be no place for God in the world if life began on its own. I do not believe this myself, nor would I believe it if abiogenesis were proved to be a fact today.

Do you have any evidence to offer for your own position other than the same video link you've posted several times?

As I've said over and over again, the claimed "evidence" for evolution is on par with all of these subjects which also had "evidence" supporting them:

(1) The evidence that amalgam (mercury-based) dental fillings don't leak mercury (yes this was the original claim of the ADA)

(2) The evidence that the amount of mercury vapor that escapes from amalgam fillings is inconsequential (another claim by the ADA)

(3) The evidence that NutraSweet (aspartame) is safe when in fact ALL THREE components of it are toxic

(4) The evidence that tomatoes are poisonous (see the tomato effect)

(5) The evidence that mercury in vaccines has no relationship to autism or other diseases

(6) and on and on.

The "evidence" for evolution is presented the very same way by the same establishment-scientific-community which forbids you to work in most scientific fields if you don't believe their religion (talk about "intolerance").

Anyone who wants to see my position on why evolution is false can search this forum for the roulette wheel example and the ruleset posts.

Now, the propaganda machine is right in front of your eyes as they redefine evolution to "natural selection":

http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z

(But again, for those who don't want to see it will be blind regardless of the evidence that is presented.)

And why are they doing this?

To save face.

People are FINALLY becoming aware of just how corrupt the established "scientific" community is that they are now questioning, and to have such a stupidly-ridiculous idea as soup-to-man evolution being included in their religion would surely cause their downfall.

So, they are redefining "evolution" to save face, that is, to save their failing religion.

Now, the fact is, there is order in the universe that can be explained by natural processes (existing rules or "laws" of physics) such as the growth of crystals or smooth sand on the seashore.

But, these underlying rules cannot account for a rise from soup to life, and neither can they account for a change from cell-to-man (talking about natural selection here) which I'll deal with in a minute.

Why?

Because of fragility and irreducible complexity.

Beneficial mutations cannot cause complex subsystems to form in a single step, so you—as an evolutionist—would have to accept the idea that small parts of these subsystems would form first and then mutate into further complex-subsystems.

Two problems with this idea are:

(1) The small non-complex mutations that are becoming part of a complex system would certainly be a harmful, useless mutation and would be selected out long before it ever had a chance to develop more complexity.

(2) Math. (see below)

If it takes 1,000,000 harmful mutations to form a part of what will become a complex subsystem later (and for some strange reason it is not selected out), we now have a situation where there is a much stricter requirement about what type of mutation will be "beneficial".

Why?

Because the first "part" of the "developing" complex machine has a much smaller range of attributes (or "designs") that would constitute a "beneficial" mutation to itself. For this reason, we can no longer say that it will only take 1,000,000 (a very conservative number of begin with) mutations to come up with a beneficial mutation. Now that we have the first "part" of the coming complex subsystem, it may take 1,000,000 times 1,000,000 mutations to come up with the second "part" of the machine.

Thats 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000,000.

Now, lets say that the second "part" of the complex machine did form. Now there is a much narrower range of mutations that could be considered "beneficial" for the next part of the subsystem to form, not to mention that the likelihood that the current state of the mutation is beneficial with these two parts hanging off is far less likely than even than it is with the first original "part".

So, now lets say that this DID occur for the sake of argument. The third part that needs to be created has to be within an even (much) narrower specification in order to be considered "beneficial", so in this case, it's likely that the number of mutations necessary to form a "part" of the developing system would be (VERY VERY CONSERVATIVELY) 1,000,000 times more specified.

So now, we are dealing with a chance factor that looks like this:

1,000,000,000,000 x 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

And now that we have these three mutation hanging off this organism, what are the chances that it is even remotely beneficial in its current state.

Think about this for a second. Can you design a machine with even 100 parts that is fully functional with only 1 part, and then with only 2 parts, and then with only 3 parts, all the way up to 100?

OK, so now let's get to the fourth part, then the fifth, sixth, all the way to the one-hundredth part. Do you know what kind of number we would have as a chance factor?

Do you know how narrow the specifications for the last part would be? Needless to say, VERY, because the unlikelihood of just the right kind of mutation to complete the subsystem increases multiplicatively (or much more likely factorially) along the way. (My estimates in this post have been conservative to give evolution a broad edge.)

Also, what are the chances that every single step along the course of the construction of this machine the unfinished "part" would be considered "beneficial" and would not be selected out?

You see, when you look carefully at this situation, its becomes exactly what I've called it all along:

Positively ridiculous.

There have been numerous discussions here about these probability figures. a) they are based on certain assumptions and b) some people don't realise that trillions of simple organisms over the world, replicating perhaps once a day or so, over a few billion years, can stack up quite a lot of mutations. This puts the "incredulous" factor into perspective I think.

Secondly, evolution has got nothing to do with amalgams. Fossil evidence in the geological record showing change over time has got to do with evolution; continents moving has got to do with plate tectonics; ice moving is glaciology. Then you've got people putting a metal which is known to be toxic in people's mouths. Of course it's going to affect some people who can't detox it properly.

RAZD kept asking you to show how heritable traits in populations do not, in your belief, change over time, because this is the essence of ToE. It's got nothing to do with conspiracies, Hitler, amalgams, chemtrails or whatever. What is lacking here is concrete evidence on the creationists' side that ToE is wrong and that life was created as we see it now, 6000 years ago. Though actually you said you don't believe the world is 6000 years old and repeated requests for you to define your position have gone unanswered.

Define my position about what?

What brand of creationism you believe in; how old you believe the earth to be.

I am very aware that all of the answers are not in yet, as science still has a lot of work to do in answering these questions.

I am also aware that we see a lot of evidence for both a young creation and an old creation. Of course, evolutionists don't like to acknowledge the young Earth evidence, and creationists don't like to acknowledge the old Earth evidence. To be intellectually honest, we must view all of the evidence.

It's important to note that I can only hypothesize, as can scientists, as to the age of the Earth and Universe, so here's my best guess.

The universe is old, very old, perhaps hundreds-of-thousands or even millions of years. This is why the matter that makes up the Earth and moon seem old. But considering the young-Earth evidence, it seems that someone stopped by this busy little solar system several thousand years ago and did some rearranging.

(I say "I think" below to humbly underscore the fact that I don't know all of these things. This is my best guess.)

I think God updated some of the satellite positions around the planets, most notably the Earth's moon. Hence the "astronomical" coincidence that the moon, when viewed from the Earth, can eclipse the sun perfectly. It seems self evident that it is not by chance.

He also made other changes to the solar system that are necessary and intimately related to the proper functioning of life on Earth. These changes explain the anomalies that we see pointed out in this video:

(Our Solar System)
http://urlbam.com/ha/u

I think God also rejuvenated the Earth, changing it in many ways in preparation for the life He would create on it.

The Biblical support for this hypothesis is as follows.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)

This is pretty clear, and I think that God did create the Earth in the beginning, probably meaning that time/space was all created at the same "time" as it is necessary (so far as we know) for the existence of matter.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2)

This verse is mistranslated. The verse should read:

"And the earth became a waste and a ruin;..."

Those in doubt (which should be everyone) should look up the words in Strong's. Don't believe me. It's important that everyone does their own research. It's enlightening and rewarding and builds confidence.

So, we have the Earth "becoming" a waste and a ruin. This implies that at some previous time, it was not a waste or ruin.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
(Genesis 1:3)

Now, I think verse 3 (shown above) occurs after a great deal of time. This means that I generally accept what Christians call the "Gap Theory", being that there is a time gap between verses 2 and 3.

I will also point out that this is the only place (that I'm aware of) that my belief differs from Hovind. Hovind believes in a young Earth, and he provide strong evidence for it, but in studying his case for young Earth, I believe most—if not all—of his points are easily explained by a "renewed" Earth, as I pointed out in the verse above.

I will also add that the Bible make references to previous Earth ages, and I think this is supported by science and is another point of validity for an old Earth, new creation theory.

Now, on the other hand, I must admit that this theory also leaves a few of the "On the X day, God created..." verses isolated, at least, at first glance.

So as we look at this, and admittedly (I'm still researching this little by little as time permits) you do find some interesting things.

For example, the first creation is light (Gen 1:3) and that creation is marked by the appearance of darkness and light:

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
(Genesis 1:5)

The word evening here means "night" and is from a root that means "dusk". The word morning here is from a root meaning "dawn", which is the first appearance of light. Considering that days are measured by the absence and presence of light, this verse becomes more interesting than at first glance.

It is most important to point out that all of the creation days are written from an Earth perspective, meaning that they seem to be explaining what the Earth experienced (or what an Earth-bound observer would see) during this time. Keeping this in mind, verses like the Genesis 1:3 become easier to understand in that the Earth was probably completely dark and covered with layers of thick water vapor.

The verse that is generally speaking about the creation of light may have nothing to do with the original "creation" of light at all. Light was likely "created" much earlier in time, and in fact, the verse (Gen 1:3) does not say light was created. It says that God said "Let there be light." When we view this from an Earth perspective, it could mean that God allowed light to be on the Earth at that time, even though He actually created light at a much earlier time.

If this is written like the rest of these verses—from an Earth perspective (which would be logical considering the verses were written to be understood by a people who dwell on the Earth)—then things begin to make more sense. The same logic holds true for verses 14 through 16. Verse 17 further substantiates my "Earth perspective" theory.

Most of the remaining creation days deal directly with terraforming the Earth and creating life, all things that I suspect God has no problem doing in an Earth day (24 hours) with His own power.

I think this gives you a pretty good idea of my current creation theory, and I hope it answers your questions.


An interesting loosely related subject:

The Fourth Word of the Bible: Christ's Role In Creation.

Very cool Russ! Well thought out. I just read something about the "evening" issue the other day but would have to find it to say (don't remember exactly). I would agree about the "renewal" of the earth issue. Or the way we look at it - to create is to organize (pre-existing matter). I'd probably differ slightly on a few other things - but agree with the gist of it!

I'd asked you myself to explain before, too, so appreciate it.

Interesting post Russ. Cause for thought, thanks for sharing. I'm not too sure about the days of creation though. Consider the order of things that were created on each day and how (for me at least) it makes sense that they would be 24 hour days, rather than a thousand years or more. Why do I say this? Each aspect ofcreation relies upon the other. They work together in sync and are necessary (e.g. our Sun). To create one aspect and leave a LONGGGGGGGG time before creating the next makes little sense to me. How would any of those things survive before the next essential was created and why would God do this, when nothing is beyond Him? It doesn't take an eternal God thousands of years to create anything or perform a miracle. Usually it's instantaneous.

That's just my opinion guys. I know everybody thinks differently and it's very hard for us to prove either way, but I believe in God's word exactly as stated. I have no reason not to. Apart from the actual age of the universe/matter etc which I am really interested in what you guys have stated about that (Jeanie included). But the days of creation? I believe set up our 24 hour day week and resting on the Sabbath, just as God Himself did for our example.

If one believes in instant creation then for what purpose would God leave a gap of thousand/s of years inbetween each and how would they have lived in such a "paradise" of missing aspects and waiting for another thousand years or so before the next?

To me, I have no issue taking the biblical word at face value, since it makes a lot more sense.

It personally makes more sense, to me, that the creation took longer. But don't think our salvation depends on what we think either way....

Sorry. I think we have a small misunderstanding. I probably wasn't clear about this aspect of my current thoughts on the subject.

I do believe the "days" are literal 24 hours periods. I just think that there were previous Earth ages and that there was a "gap" between the creation "days" and the original creation of matter itself.

Hope that makes sense.

Thank you.

This is the best I can do for now and it's what makes the most sense to me knowing what I know.

I hope others benefit from the ideas here too.

I should have read your post a bit more thoroughly, sorry.

Yes, I am now quite intrigued by this gap theory. I'd heard it mentioned before, but never really read into it or knew exactly what the belief was. It may well be a possibility and makes me consider on the wonders of God before we came along! Interesting concept. I'd like to learn a bit more about that if there is any information that ties in with the biblical word of God.

I Just wanted to say real fast.. ((( Smiles )))

I got a cassette tape on that from a Christian Ministry.
The tape is called "the Three Earth Ages".
I'm not sure if thats what your talking about???
But I do know there can be different interpretations on it
based on translation or compareing it to other Bible scriptures on that subject.
I've read a few.
Old Earth New Earth Gaps ect..
But what they mostly have in common is..
They don't believe in evolution expecially macro evolution.
It's all interesting reading..
But most of my life growing up in the Church it was mostly basic 101.
I don't remember any real deep discussions on things.
Then I came to a point in my life were I drifted off as there was nothing to really hold me there in my later teenage years.
I thought I just took it with me.
Basic 101.
Then one day I realized from watching a certain minister on TV..
I really new nothing much and in him just reading the Bible he read things that seemed new to me..
That I never really thought much about or was really taught in Church.
I just don't remember that.
I was shocked at first in totall disbelief and then cryed my eyes out..
about my lack of real knowledge as I was just treading along..
And then because of him I "really" started reading it again.
Like I was finally really seeing it for the first time.
Since then and that was long before my T&H..
I just wanted to soak it all up and learn from it.
From alot of different Christian sources like it is when one is watching TLN.
I've learned something new from them all & of course some are better then others but...
I can compare it all and then really read it again for myself it's like connecting the dots.
I just needed help with that & I really didn't know I needed that..
An anchor of some kind..
Thats why I was all afloat for years..
I feel like I've finally learned alot more now then I ever
did in most of my early life back then.
On the cradle roll and onward it just was back then.
I guess I really didn't understand it well or thought I did.
I'm insatiable now.
That minister put a spark back into my life that was missing.
All thoses years in the Church growing up and I really didn't understand much or enough..
And I really didn't know how to love God either.
That feeling inside I didn't really have it..
It was the connection part I didn't get and thats why I left
and then thats why I came back..
It's something you have to feel deep down inside and understand.
Or else there is nothing to really hold you there in the first place.
I understand that concept now..
I just didn't really understand that back then.
And I understand what Bex is saying too the context of it.
I know the feeling and the possibiltes now..
I'm learning too with everything I have read and growing with it.
I love learning together in that way too..
Thats what attracted me to this board..
The bonds..
Well said Bex.. ((( Smiles )))

It may well be a possibility and makes me consider on the wonders of God before we came along! Interesting concept.
I'd like to learn a bit more about that if there is any information that ties in with the biblical word of God.

Stay Well
Lynn

Thanks for clarifying what your beliefs about creationism are, Russ. I have a few questions for you.



Yes, I'm interested in the evidence you say you see. I'm having trouble finding it in your post. Do you have concrete reasons for "young earth evidence," for example? As someone who accepts that the earth is 3.75 billion years old, I can see geological and radiometric dating data which show this. What "old earth" evidence are you yourself looking at?



And if I wanted to study this as a scientist, where would you suggest I search for concrete evidence? It's quite easy for someone to state their beliefs. I could say that I thought that the earth is really hollow and fairies live inside. The thing is, I'd have a lot of trouble trying to show that this was really the case, and it would contradict quite a lot of scientific evidence, for example the fact that earth has a magnetic field.



And a day is 23.934 hours long. What are the chances of the day being that number of hours? They must be astronomical! Therefore it's no coincidence, right? Just like the fact that the moon is where it is, according to you. Thing is, the earth's rotation rate is slowing down, and a day on earth was once shorter than it is. Just like the moon used to be closer to the earth than it is, and in several million years will be far enough away that total solar eclipses will no longer happen. We have this information through something called physics.



This video is full of factual inaccuracies, starting with the claim discussed above that the moon's position is somehow meaningful evidence of creation. Would you please explain one or two points from the video that you personally think are the most relevant?

The rest of your post talks about what you believe according to the Bible. So if I were a geologist and I wanted to see if your ideas about earth being changed somehow in the past were accurate -- as I would do in order to test any hypothesis -- what do you think I should look for? What evidence should I find out in the field?

Actually, this isn't the whole story either. Hydrogen-to-man is what they teach, and no less a scientific mind than that of Sir Fred Hoyle understands this. One can go further and include the very, very beginning: Nothing-to-man is the full story, or Cosmic Egg - to -man if you prefer a bang with something to originate from (but no reason to originate).

Since we have little consensus on bangs, and they all "result" in a uniform blanket of hydrogen (and a trivial amount of helium, technically) making up all the matter in the universe, it would be most accurate to say Hydrogen-to-man is the requirement. That's what is universally taught; that's what any self-aware entity seriously considering the matter will require to see evidence for before believing.

And that's what's strictly required by the religiously intolerant. That's why an astronomer can be seen as a very serious threat to evolutionism if he doesn't keep his mouth shut about certain discoveries and their implications.

Now if any evolutionist would care to agree that hydrogen doesn't up & form stars, galaxies, and clusters on its own... well, it might be nice to start a thread about something we agree upon. I would be interested to see at what point in the story our disagreements commence. If I have been mistaken in my belief that we disagree from the very start, it'd be nice to find out.

Of course one hopes evolutionists can understand the view of others. Effectively saying "We accept these beliefs and require others to accept them, but they're not a part of our teaching because we're not confident they can be defended," just isn't very convincing. How many of you would be receptive to people teaching Christianity in this manner? (Note: I do not ask how many would approve - we already have sufficient information to confidently estimate a high percentage.)

One thing I find so interesting about the current President of Amazing Facts is... (((( Smiles ))))

That he is Jewish and now a Christian which makes him a Messanic Jew.
And being Jewish he told the story of how he was athestic and being Jewish did not believe in Yeshua and started reading the Bible to use it against Christians that do believe in Yeshua/Jesus.
Instead it opened his eyes and he understood it from a different perspective then what he believed to be true before.

He was taught that in being Jewish he could not believe in Yeshua/Jesus which I hear alot from Messianic Jews who came to their Savior.
In being taught good Jews don't accept Yeshua or Jesus.
Now, he is the President of the Ministry Amazing Facts.
Isn't that story just amazing.
So many former Atheists that have came to Yeshua when they finally understood the concept of who God really is and the interwoveness of Scripture and then turned into Apologists and Ministers with a zeal!

I read The Doug Batchelor Story: "The Richest Caveman" and he was the son of a millionaire father and a show-business mother plus he was Jewish and his life changed one day when he began reading a dust-cover Bible a fellow " searcher' had left behind in his cave.

His life was changed by the transforming power of God's Word!
Just in looking at where he came from and where he is now is just an amazing testamony and could make a believer out of about anyone as his life changed a complete 180 degrees.

The Richest Caveman - The Doug Batchelor Story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT2nRSvcuhY

Here's his book

http://www.amazon.com/Richest-Caveman-Doug-Batchelor-Story/dp/B0006P1FWQ

And he went on to write the Amazing Book Of Facts: volume 1 and volume 2 using historical, scientific, unusual facts and other amazing facts to share the gospel.

He sure is unique and one of the ministries I find to be a powerful witness for the Lord.
As well as Joe Crews how "evolution flunked the science test" they are powerful witnesses for sure!
And it didn't end with Joe Crews as it just got better!
Interesting life story and way of spreading the gospel!

http://www.amazingfacts.org/store/p...ault.aspx?a=b&affiliateid=10056&